Superdelegates start considering what’s in it for them

March 8, 2008

The Politico had an item this week explaining that there’s a group of Midwestern Democratic superdelegates who’ve created a voting bloc that will withhold convention endorsements until they get what they want — in this case, more assurances on the economy.

The apparent deal among Ohioans is the first evidence of superdelegates’ banding together and seeking concessions from the presidential candidates in return for votes at the convention. It’s a practice that could become more common after Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday put her back on solid footing in her race against Obama and ensured that the battle for superdelegates will continue for many weeks to come.

Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur, one of the leading protectionists in Congress, said Ohioans have many suggestions on economic and trade issues they hoped the candidates would address.

“We have a laundry list of measures we think would be effective, some involving tax policy, some involving investment policy, intellectual property incentives to hold investments in this country,” Kaptur said. “I’m hoping superdelegates [who] are uncommitted that have the economy as their major concern will gravitate to our group and use that power to gain additional attention.”

On the substance, I’m sympathetic to the concerns of Kaptur and her colleagues, who are looking out for the economic interests of their communities, but there is something disconcerting about superdelegates exploiting their role in the nominating process to get more of what they want.

I hate to say it, because I admire Kaptur and I’m not a fan of MSNBC’s Dan Abrams, but in this fascinating interview, I’m afraid Abrams was making quite a bit of sense.

One should hesitate when it comes to throwing around words like “blackmail,” and holding the process “hostage,” but it certainly sounds as if these superdelegates are playing a dangerous game.

Michelle Cottle had a good item about this.

As [Kaptur] sees it, her sworn duty is to be as aggressive an advocate for the people of her district as she can…. As Dan points out — and God help me, I cannot believe I’m agreeing with anything the man says — that is Kaptur’s duty as a member of Congress. As a superdelegate, she is supposed to worry about the best interests of the party as a whole. Alternatively, if she feels moved to focus more narrowly on her district, she should agree to swing the same way her voters did.

As for Kaptur’s whining about how the candidates need some incentive to pay attention to Ohio: I’m sorry, but that’s what the state’s primary was for. You had your moment in the sun. You milked it for all it was worth. Now move aside and let the other states have their turn.
I understand the temptation of superdelegates to abuse their positions of power. But using Kaptur’s logic, what’s to stop superdelegates in every state from withholding their support until they can provoke a bidding war between the candidates over who will shower their states with the most jobs, roads, subsidies, federal contracts, and, of course, ponies, ponies, ponies for everyone!?

What’s to stop them? Nothing. That’s why superdelegates shouldn’t exploit their role in the process this way.

Here’s a partial transcript from the MSNBC interview:

ABRAMS: So, now superdelegates are like a special interest group vying for power? The superdelegate system already seemed crazy and undemocratic. But this just sounds scary…. I’m saying that this sounds insane. The idea that you guys are going to say, we’re going to withhold judgment. We want to get the things that we want. That’s not what the superdelegates are supposed to be doing.

KAPTUR: Well, Dan, I’m glad you’re spirited because we’re spirited also. And our job is to represent our constituents and their deepest concerns which in the industrial heartland, relate to the economy. Today, “USA Today” had a headline about the economy even slowing more. We want to hear more and we actually want to converse more. So that we can hear ideas that would help our region strengthen in the future, rather than weaken and hopefully, whole country. So, we’re looking for more on the economy.

ABRAMS: But that’s your job as a member of Congress to represent your district. My understanding from everyone in the Democratic Party is, the superdelegates are not — let me read what Howard Dean said: “They’re not a bunch of cigar-smoking people making deals in the backroom and they were not created so the party elite control the nomination.”

It sounds to me, like you’re talking about these cigar-smoking back deals. You’re saying, unless you agree with us, it sounds like mafia-like, unless you agree with us, we’re not going to deal with you. Superdelegates are supposed to be out there making sure that the most electable person wins. Not the person who best represents Ohio, isn’t that right?.

KAPTUR: It’s not just about winning, it’s about governing. And if you don’t understand what is really happening across the heartland, heartland in term of the economy, you won’t be as effective as a president. We try very hard for over a year to talk to the candidates, too introduce them to those who have been affected by the economy in our region.

Ohio, unlike Illinois and New York, is really not a financial center. We are a production center. And because of their experience and their own regions, they bring certain skills to the table. We hope to use this time to educate and to inform and to converse.

ABRAMS: But that’s what they’ve been doing campaigning. I mean, when they’re campaigning in Ohio, they’ve been there for weeks campaigning.

KAPTUR: No, they haven’t. They’ve been at big huge rallies giving a formal speech.

ABRAMS: So, they haven’t been in the back doors with the people smoking the cigars and party insiders who –

KAPTUR: No, not cigars. We don’t want that. What we want is we want them to meet with some of our business leaders.

ABRAMS: Why should you then (ph) meet with the people in California and Minnesota and every other state where the superdelegates are trying to hijack the process?

KAPTUR: No, I don’t think people are trying to do that.

ABRAMS: It sounds like that to me.

Unfortunately, it sounds like that to me, too. This just isn’t what superdelegates are supposed to do. It’s an abuse of the process — and a reminder that the process itself is in desperate need of reform.

Does it matter – hillary’s SCORCH AND BURN campaign will hand victory to the same criminal cabal that brought us dur chimpfuhrer – a chimp-like clone that differentiates himself with the name mccain.

But hey – didn’t bill actually kowtow to the same group when he let all the Iran-Contra crooks off the hook (and just what did he get in return – endless investigations of himself and his personal life)?

Economy doesn’t matter to clinton – its all about a sense of entitlement and ego. You have to wonder who is really behind this campaign.

  • Dale’s right. I can’t stand the Clinton campaign these days, but that was out of nowhere.

    Mary finds wild outrage in enough places without being encouraged by your posts.

  • I’m hoping the DNC will kill the superdelegates role in the process altogether before 2012. As Abrams said, allowing supers to decide the nomination couldn’t be less democratic.

    For those that argue…”those are the rules”…”the DNC can nominate their candidate anyway they want”. It’s true. But the voters can choose not to affiliate themselves with the DNC as well. If the DNC hopes to grow their base…they need to lose the supers.

  • Seems to me like the Superdelegates are trying to rationalize a possible reversal of the expected vote. Maybe Clinton’s strategy of cozying up to the SDs might be paying off.

    This is the party that’s been screaming for 7 years about Bush’s rule/law skirting. Is my party purposely pushing me away ? Because if they keep this up, I will stay home, or vote Green just out of principle.

    Shameful.

  • ABC News Continues To Get Obama/NAFTA Story Wrong

    “What is DEFINITELY known right now is that the Obama campaign did NOT say one thing to the Canadian government and say something else to the people of Ohio. Yet, Hillary continues to attack Barack for doing so. To the extent that she continues to say that’s what he did, she is lying to the American people right now… in real time.”

  • Another politician that can’t see the forest for the trees. Being a superdelegate is about choosing the most electable delegate for the Democratic Party, and thus for the country, not just Ohio. The superdelegates need to be thinking about where the Democartic Party needs to be in 5, 10, 15 years time, because now is when the seeds are being sown. Yes, short term the economy is a serious issue, but it wont be turned around any time soon, after all Shrub has another nine months to hurt it even more. C’mon Kaptur, think big picture, you can where two hats at the same time.

  • I for one am encouraged by this development. This is politics after all, not some idealistic ritual of anointment — and politics is all about using whatever leverage one has available to move one’s agenda forward (If only our current leadership in the House and Senate understood this). I’m glad are super-delegates are getting feisty and demanding. It will force Obama and Clinton to at least devote some of their time and energy into coming to accommodations with the various interest groups in their own party (or not) — instead of spending 100 percent of their time spewing vitriol at each other. Also, remember, that as these groups engage with the candidates, the candidates will be building up their influence with Democratic constituencies. The candidate who emerges from this process will probably have stronger policy muscle, better political reflexes, and stronger support from the Democratic establishment than they would have had if their nomination was a cake-walk. Think about it: if Obama or Clinton’s nomination were a done deal, would they be giving more than lip service to groups like Kaptur’s? And would groups like Kaptur’s have a stake in supporting a President who only paid them lip service during the campaign?

    BTW: Little Bear, I sympathize with your anger and frustration. As a former Clintonista, I’m getting fed up with her tactics — they forced this voter over into the Obama camp. However, this thread isn’t really about Clinton.

  • In response, to Just Guessing, I would ask who exactly is the most electable candidate? Although Obama polls well in the Red States, Clinton polls better in the States with big electoral counts. Frankly, I think when it comes to electability, it’s probably too close to call. My gut says go with Obama, but I suspect he’ll be more vulnerable to swiftboating than Clinton. Moreover, with the delegate counts as close as they are now, it’s difficult to say that either candidate has a clear mandate from the party electorate. And, unfortunately, the track record of Democratic Conventions producing electable candidates hasn’t been very good — Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. None of these candidates ran a very effective campaign once they got the nomination. The party faithful loved ’em, though.

  • Kaptur’s position is a wonderful demonstration of what is wrong with many in the democratic party. The paramount concern should be with electing democratic candidates first. There simply should not be any push for special interests at this time. Look at what havoc the republicans have wreaked over the past 11 years. No democratic leader would have done so much damage to the country. Now with the a great opportunity to regain control of the presidency and both houses in congress we have petty partisan squabbling because they can. Kaptur is greedy and small minded with her comments and hopefully the democrats will rise above and vote for the greater good of the party.

  • “It’s a practice that could become more common after Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday put her back on solid footing”

    So the media thinks Clinton is back on solid footing. She probably goes into Pennsylvania trailing by over 160 delegates. Even if Clinton wins Pennsylvanis by 10, Obama will still lead by around 158 delegates.

    Exactly where is she going to make this up. Obama will then win at least North Carolina and probably Indiana putting him up by over 170 delegates. GAME OVER. There’s no where elese for her to go. Yet according to the article she’s “on solid footing”. Amazing.

  • Obama’s campaign advertising in my state relied heavily on his support for universal health care which he does not support for adults. A major issue in my state, like the NAFTA one in Ohio, this was disingenuous to say the least.

    • Comments are closed.